Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2011

Doomsday Ion Cannon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google search doesn't yield a single page that links "Doomsday Ion Cannon" with "LOIC", and it is not mentioned in the article either. Muhandes (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - not a valid name for the subject; the negligible Google hits use it in another context. Appears to be an invention by the redirect creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Bridgeplayer above. There is zero traffic in the stats to this redirect. Seems like somebody was playing around. Let's clean up. —mako๛ 02:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bridgeplayer. Note though that the redirect was created only 6 hours before the deletion nomination, viewing states on grok.se never appear before the end of the day and sometimes take a few days before appearing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nearest planet to earth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete, without prejudice to recreation should an appropriate target exist in the future. --Taelus (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venus is not nearest Earth all the time. Sometimes Mars is nearer. Iceblock (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - This seems like something of an abuse of redirects, even if it were always true. —mako๛ 14:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - finding the answer to questions such as 'highest', 'longest', 'fastest' etc. is a valid reason to consult an encyclopaedia. I have no objection to redirects being used to help readers find the answer to such questions. We have many redirects of this type e.g. Highest mountain in North America and loads of others. However, for such a redirect to work, two criteria need to be met: 1) It must be accurate; 2) The answer must lie in the target. In the case under discussion, there is nothing to answer the question in the target so the reader would still be uncertain; and secondly the accuracy of the implied answer is questioned. Thus, delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per BridgePlayer's well put argument. Redirects are there to help not to hinder, and if they mislead in that way, then they should be deleted. I've no objections to redirects either, but the question should always be "does this help or hinder someone trying to find information in an enyclopaedia?". So for that reason I agree with BridgePlayer, if it hinders or misleads then it should go. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I did not know and wanted the answer, this is the answer I would want to receive. Closest on average and orbit is closest--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marsorbitsolarsystem.gif --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if all this could be reliably sourced and added to the article (or somewhere else) then not only would the redirect be a 'keep' but it would be a most valuable addition. At present, though, the reader would still be unclear. Though he might well conclude that the target is the answer to his question, he has no prose or source to confirm this and would remain unaware of what is an important qualification. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another option would be adding this information to Solar System (where it would definitely be on topic) and then redirecting to the relevant section in that article. Barring that change, I can't seem to find an appropriate place to point the article and, as a result, I tend to agree with Bridgeplayer. —mako๛ 02:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could just as well argue the closest planet to Earth is The Moon. The point is, is it a useful redirect, i.e for someone trying to search for. I admit this is a case of second-guessing a bit, and they probably don't want the Moon but Mars or Venus or something for a project on the Solar System, but if we are all second-guessing like that what people are trying to find, it indicates to me the redirect is unhelpful. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A List of astronomical bodies by distance from Earth (with a better title) would be both encyclopaedic and a useful target for this redirect. I can't find that we currently have one though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a FAQ. and as stated, it could refer to Venus, Mars or Mercury. Although, it could be redirected to an article that Thryduulf suggests that should be written. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cliff Hangers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Cliffhanger (disambiguation). Cannot be deleted for GFDL reasons. --Taelus (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has a lot of history as a former article prior to its merge into its target per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination). I have concerns for reversions and vandalisms. Therefore, I propose a reincarnation: "deletion and then re-creation" as a redirect. Therefore, no one will use history to revert from redirect to its former. --Gh87 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, anyone must read Wikipedia:Userfication, so any of us can retrieve the former article and then insert it into userspace. --Gh87 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion - I don't particularly care about the reincarnation and details of how this happens. The redirect itself should definitely point to the dab for cliff hanger and the link on that page should point directly to the section of the price is right. I don't care what the link text on the dab says. —mako๛ 06:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete the history, especially as it was merged and is thus required for licensing purposes. If it is reverted or vandalised (of which there is no evidence since the AfD) then it can be protected via a request at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cliffhanger (disambiguation). For the reasons described by Thryduulf we most certainly can't delete this redirect. The choice, therefore, is between keeping and retargetting it somewhere more useful. Looking at the hits, about 3,000, they are way greater than I would expect from readers looking for a single pricing game (the main target article only gets 8,000 hits). This suggests to me that most of the hits probably come from readers looking for the generic term or another usage. Hence the retarget is the better solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got no objection to that retargetting. I have though added a hatnote at the current target noting that "Cliff Hangers" redirects there and pointing to the dab page for other uses. If the outcome of this discussion is to retarget, that hatnote should be revised or removed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of current United States governors by denomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This redirect was previously used to redirect to a now deleted article, and the article it is currently redirecting to doesn't have the information needed for the redirect to be used. Aaaccc (talk), 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_10&oldid=1136448417"